Kettlebell How are kettlebell swings not Cardio???

[apa]

This thread makes my head hurt. When common folks use the "equivalent" word for cardio in my language it always means something similar to being able to jog for some distance. Usually a 5k or "for fun" or whatever.

Us common folks also understand that sprinting and lsd running are different types of cardio but in the end; cardio is cardio (i'm refering to the translation of the word here). Everyone understands what the word means.

Back to the question. I have improved my jogging times by just doing Swings. (the "key" here is the heartrate). I am not an expert but Swings definitely help your cardio.

 

[MikeTheBear]

S&S is diabolical in it's effectiveness and economy. Saying it has no cardio benefit or trying to explain it away is like telling me the sky isn't blue. I have eyes and the sky IS blue.

Well technically.....

Our atmosphere is composed of air which is clear. From space, you can look down on earth and see terrain features in their correct colors. Astronauts don't see a "blue haze" over the polar ice caps - they are clearly white. So technically, the air in our atmosphere is not blue. However, it appears blue, and this is explained here: Why is the sky blue? :: NASA Space Place

Okay, I'm not trying to be argumentative or condescending. The point of this post is to illustrate a point I made earlier: some people are interested in the "why" - why does something work or, in this example, why is the sky blue? Some people could care less about the why and just want the "how" - how do I gain fitness using kettlebells? I am a "why" guy and you are likely a "how" guy, and that is perfectly okay. This goes back to @KIWI5 notion of "generally speaking."

Generally speaking, the sky is blue.

Scientifically speaking, air is colorless, but particles in the atmosphere scatter the blue wavelength which causes the sky to appear blue.

Generally speaking, swings are "cardio."

Scientifically speaking, there is a longer answer which we have been discussing.

 

[Smile-n-Nod]

S&S is certainly something that approaches more a "heart-healthy" exercise than powerlifting, given that it has more reps for longer periods of time, but it still isn't an exercise keeping the heart pumping at a steady state, but rather makes in peak and valley repeatedly.

I'm finding that a combination of S&S 4-5 times per week and rucking 2-3 times per week works very nicely for me.

 

[Ryan T]

We should tailor our kettlebell practice towards our needs, but it make sense to me that the very act of swinging the kettlebell in various volumes, weights, rep/rest schemes will always have some level of carryover to most general most goals as it relates to fitness and strength. I'm not saying that kettlebell swings are the most effective tool as there are many implements and training modalities out there, but barring any medical contraindications, I think most goals could benefit from the inclusion of swings.

After reading and posting in this thread, I am starting to wonder how best we can benefit from the collective knowledge that has been expressed here? I like knowing the "how" and the distinctions but knowing my personality, it could draw me back to the "perfect" program mentality. I've learned from that mistake, so when in doubt, keep training and roll through your current training program. Finish it, stay consistent and re-evaluate once you've finished the cycle. That's my take.

 

[MikeTheBear]

Mike... I don't want to wander into the world of semantics any more than you do.... but...
VO2max
I have beat this drum a number of times, but I will risk it again...
It has always been my understanding that VO2max improvement is something that is not easily trained or achievable except in cases where the individual in question is quite young and/or quite detrained. In athletes who are well developed and with a number of years endurance and conditioning training under their belt increasing VO2 max is very limited.

What is possible however, is training to increase the fractional utilization of of VO2MAX. This is very doable in all athletes.

VO2MAX indicates what your maximum potential for processing oxygen is. (Short periods of time usually single digit in nature)
Fractional utilization is the percentage of of VO2MAX you can sustain for longer time periods. (Typically over 30 minutes)

VO2MAX by itself has very little meaning or usefulness...
At least this is how endurance athletes look at it.

My apologies for always (almost) looking at things from an endurance perspective, but that has been my path...

No need to apologize and you are correct. I am also aware that everyone's top VO2max is limited by genetics. Unfortunately. My understanding is that a sedentary person can, with training, improve their VO2max up to this genetic limit (or as close to it as is physiologically possible). However, as you mentioned, reaching the VO2max limit does not mean the end of improvements as there are other factors at work in making a good endurance athlete.

 

[offwidth]

No need to apologize and you are correct. I am also aware that everyone's top VO2max is limited by genetics. Unfortunately. My understanding is that a sedentary person can, with training, improve their VO2max up to this genetic limit (or as close to it as is physiologically possible). However, as you mentioned, reaching the VO2max limit does not mean the end of improvements as there are other factors at work in making a good endurance athlete.

I guess one of the bright spots of being sedentary is that there is upward progress possible...

 

[MikeTheBear]

Okay, let's try to simplify this. For those who really want to know the "why" I highly recommend the "Cardio Code" book.

For those somewhat interested in the why, this review of the Cardio Code by Andrew Reed highlights the main points: "The Cardio Code" (Book Review)

For those who really could care less but are now "confused" by this thread, this paragraph from Andrew Reed's book review summarized the crux of the matter:

Following on from this topic, Jay looks at how much oxygen is used during various activities. I always thought if my heart pumped a certain number of times it meant I was working equally hard, regardless of the activity. But that’s not so, particularly when it comes to weight training.

During weight training, regardless of the lifts used, you simply can’t engage your muscles quickly enough to cause the action that takes place during traditional cyclic forms of cardio. When muscles are engaged for long periods they actually cut off blood flow, which lowers the amount of oxygen able to pass through them and decreases the intensity of work you’re doing when compared to your VO2 max. In other words, just having a high heart rate is not indicative of getting a cardio workout.

As Jay states in his book, “Having a high heart rate doesn’t mean you’re doing cardio. If that was the case I could scare you into better shape."

For the really attention-span challenged, here is the key sentence: "When muscles are engaged for long periods they actually cut off blood flow, which lowers the amount of oxygen able to pass through them and decreases the intensity of work you’re doing when compared to your VO2 max."

So what? How is this practical? It's actually very practical. First, let's get our definitions straight.

"Cardio" means performing an exercise that improves heart and lung function. In order to improve heart and lung function you need to work at a certain percentage of your VO2max. Therefore, in order to do "cardio," you need to work at a certain percentage of your VO2max.

As @Kettlebelephant noted, swings play by different rules. Yes they do. In the Cardio Code KJ had a diagram of a continuum. On one end, let's call it the left tail, you had "pure" anaerobic activity. Think a powerlifter performing a 1RM. On the other end, the right tail, you had "pure" aerobic activity. Think marathon running. Kettlebell swings fell somewhere in the middle.

Here's the practical part: you can move kettlebell swings along the continuum simply by changing weight. If you're doing heavy swings, you're closer to the left (powerlifter) tail. Your muscles are tense because of the heavy weight which means they are restricting blood flow. As a result of the blood flow restriction, the muscles are being powered by the anaerobic energy system. Use a lighter weight and you're closer to the marathoner. Your muscles may still have some tension, but not as much so some blood flows through. This allows some oxygen exchange which means that at least some of the muscles' energy is supplied by the aerobic energy system.

 

[Kozushi]

I'm finding that a combination of S&S 4-5 times per week and rucking 2-3 times per week works very nicely for me.

Actually, I think this would be 100% ideal as an exercise program.

 

[Kozushi]

Okay, let's try to simplify this. For those who really want to know the "why" I highly recommend the "Cardio Code" book.

For those somewhat interested in the why, this review of the Cardio Code by Andrew Reed highlights the main points: "The Cardio Code" (Book Review)

For those who really could care less but are now "confused" by this thread, this paragraph from Andrew Reed's book review summarized the crux of the matter:

Following on from this topic, Jay looks at how much oxygen is used during various activities. I always thought if my heart pumped a certain number of times it meant I was working equally hard, regardless of the activity. But that’s not so, particularly when it comes to weight training.

During weight training, regardless of the lifts used, you simply can’t engage your muscles quickly enough to cause the action that takes place during traditional cyclic forms of cardio. When muscles are engaged for long periods they actually cut off blood flow, which lowers the amount of oxygen able to pass through them and decreases the intensity of work you’re doing when compared to your VO2 max. In other words, just having a high heart rate is not indicative of getting a cardio workout.

As Jay states in his book, “Having a high heart rate doesn’t mean you’re doing cardio. If that was the case I could scare you into better shape."

For the really attention-span challenged, here is the key sentence: "When muscles are engaged for long periods they actually cut off blood flow, which lowers the amount of oxygen able to pass through them and decreases the intensity of work you’re doing when compared to your VO2 max."

So what? How is this practical? It's actually very practical. First, let's get our definitions straight.

"Cardio" means performing an exercise that improves heart and lung function. In order to improve heart and lung function you need to work at a certain percentage of your VO2max. Therefore, in order to do "cardio," you need to work at a certain percentage of your VO2max.

As @Kettlebelephant noted, swings play by different rules. Yes they do. In the Cardio Code KJ had a diagram of a continuum. On one end, let's call it the left tail, you had "pure" anaerobic activity. Think a powerlifter performing a 1RM. On the other end, the right tail, you had "pure" aerobic activity. Think marathon running. Kettlebell swings fell somewhere in the middle.

Here's the practical part: you can move kettlebell swings along the continuum simply by changing weight. If you're doing heavy swings, you're closer to the left (powerlifter) tail. Your muscles are tense because of the heavy weight which means they are restricting blood flow. As a result of the blood flow restriction, the muscles are being powered by the anaerobic energy system. Use a lighter weight and you're closer to the marathoner. Your muscles may still have some tension, but not as much so some blood flows through. This allows some oxygen exchange which means that at least some of the muscles' energy is supplied by the aerobic energy system.

But either way swings are not "good enough" for true cardio. I think I'm starting to truly understand this. That is a very helpful post! Judo isn't good enough for cardio either because it's a lot of powerlifter-like stuff too. In any case I love walking outside, but I had put it partly on hold because I thought S&S was giving me everything. I'm quite happy to learn that S&S isn't optimal for cardio, so I have a mission now when I go out for walks and I'll need to prize my hiking boots and backpacks as much as my kettlebells, judogi and gymnastics rings.

 

[Steve Freides]

It's too bad Pavel no longer comments on the forums- it would be interesting to hear his take on this subject!

I am looking forward to this at Strong Endurance in Chicago in about 10 days.

-S-

 

[Steve Freides]

The formula for health and happiness:

Strength training - required.

Easy, steady-state cardio - required.

Swings and similar - makes everything better but, IMHO, not required for basic health.

JMO.

-S-

 

[MikeTheBear]

The formula for health and happiness:

Strength training - required.

Easy, steady-state cardio - required.

Swings and similar - makes everything better but, IMHO, not required for basic health.

JMO.

-S-

Wow. Steve and I actually agree on something!

 

[KIWI5]

We could start a new thread----"swinging KBs does not build strength.........

 

[Bret S.]

Okay, I'm not trying to be argumentative or condescending

Generally speaking, the sky is blue.

Generally speaking, swings are "cardio."

For those who really could care less but are now "confused" by this thread

For the really attention-span challenged, here is the key sentence

Hmmmm... Feels a bit awkward.. There are ways to 'teach' and then there are other ways.. I think you mean well but sometimes things don't always come across that way.

 

[Kozushi]

The formula for health and happiness:

Strength training - required.

Easy, steady-state cardio - required.

Swings and similar - makes everything better but, IMHO, not required for basic health.

JMO.

-S-

All the same, apparently 100% correct, and a terrifically important set of principles for the attainment and maintenance of health.

 

[MikeTheBear]

@Bret S. You're not wrong. I definitely see how the posts you quoted could be considered snarky and rude. However, it does get frustrating when evidence-based arguments are met with "Well, I don't like those facts, so you're wrong and confused." This is not the first thread that discussed kettlebells and cardio. As in those previous threads, the information from Kenneth Jay's book was mentioned in this thread. As in those prior threads I have stated in this thread that I also don't like the facts and conclusions presented in the Cardio Code. You could even say that on some level I "hate" the book. I would like nothing more than for an expert in cardiac physiology to say that the reasoning in the Cardio Code is completely flawed and the conclusions are all wrong. Then I could go back to my own world where weight training and kettlebells covered all of my fitness needs, including endurance and a healthy heart. But until this happens, I am going to assume that KJ's conclusions are correct regardless of whether I "like" those conclusions. If someone chooses to ignore those conclusions that's fine. If someone has evidence that contradicts or calls into question KJ's conclusions, then by all means post that. This is how we learn. What I find annoying and frsutrating is when someone criticizes an idea with no facts to support the criticism other than "I don't see it that way."

 

[rickyw]

@mprevost. Any help? I assume if @aciampa had wanted to comment he would have by now.

Since this is such a messy thread I might as well comment. It's been awhile since exercise physiology but I had three classes in it. If an expert here needs to correct me, please do.

Have you all even defined what you claim you mean by cardio?
Are we asking about the effects of swings on the
Cardiorespiratory system? The cardiovascular system? The individual muscle fiber types? All of these systems combined?

A+A swings can be programmed to effect these systems to a degree, but it won't be as effective as LSD, or LED (long easy distance).

A+A swings definitely can aerobically condition the heart, because you can program them to keep the heart pumping above 100bpm and below MAF. They will not be as effective as a steady heart rate near MAF. Take a look at @Harald Motz training log.

High rep swings or HIIT should have a positive effect on VO2 max, since they sear your lungs like crazy.

I doubt A+A swings causes increased capillarization. HIIT doesn't. Long easy distance does.

Swings do not train cellular respiration of the type I slow twitch aerobic muscle fibers adequately-only LED does that. Swings are too intense and done in brief bouts. You need low intensity sustained rhythmic exercise to condition slow twitch fibers well.

I've seen some remarks that swings give people enough umph to do what they want and this is true I think depending on an individual's goals. However, adding LED to training will likely give you an increased edge in your chosen sport. For example, I used to alpine ski race and so I follow the sport religiously. Some years back I read in Ski Racing magazine that Lindsey Vonn's personal trainer had started her doing something like 3-4 hours of LED training weekly. She hadn't previously been doing this. She spends a ton of time in the gym already weightlifting and working on ski drills and agility. Plus, ski racing involves 1-2 minutes of racing per day, either in one long speed race or two shorter tech races in a day. You would think they would only have her train HIIT stuff. Often they will race back to back days for up to a week if they are an all event skier. Why do LED? Lindsey noted that after starting this her ability to recover between races and be ready for the next race improved dramatically. I always thought that was pretty cool. I apply it this way: feeling tired after work? Maybe kettlebell swings aren't enough. Maybe you need some LED to boost your aerobic systems' capacity to handle a stressful work day and then get back in the saddle at full speed the next morning. Just my thoughts triggered by this thread.

 

[KIWI5]

Calling this a 'messy thread' is absolutely spot on! There was no clear definition of 'CARDIO' to start with- so the general discussion has bounced back and forth with various opinions/facts on what 'CARDIO' represents. From my end, I have not changed my opinion- KB swings are awesome for 'everything'. And when I don't have time for a LED/LSD/RUCK etc.....I just grab a bell- set the 'shot clock' at 15 minutes.......and I am "good....to...GO. "

 

[Bret S.]

@Bret S. You're not wrong. I definitely see how the posts you quoted could be considered snarky and rude. However, it does get frustrating when evidence-based arguments are met with "Well, I don't like those facts, so you're wrong and confused." This is not the first thread that discussed kettlebells and cardio. As in those previous threads, the information from Kenneth Jay's book was mentioned in this thread. As in those prior threads I have stated in this thread that I also don't like the facts and conclusions presented in the Cardio Code. You could even say that on some level I "hate" the book. I would like nothing more than for an expert in cardiac physiology to say that the reasoning in the Cardio Code is completely flawed and the conclusions are all wrong. Then I could go back to my own world where weight training and kettlebells covered all of my fitness needs, including endurance and a healthy heart. But until this happens, I am going to assume that KJ's conclusions are correct regardless of whether I "like" those conclusions. If someone chooses to ignore those conclusions that's fine. If someone has evidence that contradicts or calls into question KJ's conclusions, then by all means post that. This is how we learn. What I find annoying and frsutrating is when someone criticizes an idea with no facts to support the criticism other than "I don't see it that way."

I don't do pedantic or condescending. Mike you're a smart guy, you knew my point was based on personal observations from my own personal life. If you disagree with me you can..

A. Ignore me.
B. Seek out the root cause of our differences.
C. Respectfully disagree as @Kettlebelephant did.

I Don't disagree with the science based upon the the text book definition. I actually will plug LSD training in at some point as I do see the great value in it. Right now I'm thriving in my training program and don't wish to screw it up.

When we can disagree and look to viewpoints and definitions within the context of our discussion for common ground then we can have a healthy debate (or not).. All I ask is to be given the same respect for myself and my viewpoint as I give to you, the forum members and anybody else in my life for that matter...

 

[Kettlebelephant]

C. Respectfully disagree as @Kettlebelephant did.

To clarify this, I did not disagree with you.
Read my post again, not just the part after the quote from your earlier post, but the whole thing.
All I did was to make a point that the improved well-being and performance that you experienced since starting S&S might be for other reasons than improved cardiac function (-> that doesn't mean that they couldn't actually come from better cardiac function).
You experiencing the things you experience is not proof of improved cardiac function, because as I said we cannot determine if the positive changes are a result of better "cardio", fat loss, less stress or whatever or a combination of some or all of those factors.
So you can say "Because of my own experience I think that swings improve cardio", but you can't make a definite statement that swings improve cardio.
If you look at the last part of my post I actually support your view and say that I think that "swings are cardio" (at least to a great degree) and also why I think so.